Witcher 3 @ 4K Specs + Question

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
K

knightfall3

Reputable
Apr 2, 2015
3
0
4,510
Hi all, long time reader, first time poster.

I just upgraded my graphics card to support my need for 4 monitors for my job (trader). I got a 980, and with it came Witcher 3. Installed it, played it, turns out its the best single player RPG I have ever played.

I can easily get 70-80 frames CONSTANT under all scenarios of gameplay with EVERY setting on Ultra including HairWorks at 1080p, but I would LOVE to be able to run this at 4K. As it stands right now I only get 30-33 FPS on Ultra - foliage visibility at High and no HairWorks. Right now, I run it in a borderless window at 2560x1600 with no HairWorks no AA, and all settings on Ultra except Foliage Visibility Range (high) and I can get 50-60 FPS under all scenarios. At these settings, the game looks absolutely spectacular and is more than playable.

That being said, and being an overclocker myself, the #MustGoFaster in me says I should get to 55-60 FPS @ 4K if possible. My rig specs are below:

Intel Core-i7 2600K Sandy Bridge 3.4ghz OC'd to 4.6ghz w/ Antec Kuhler 920 Liquid Cooling
ASRock Z68 Extreme4 Motherboard
nVidia GeForce GTX 980 OC'd to 1511mhz Boost clock, 1948mhz Memory clock
32 GB of Corsair Vengeance DDR3 OC'd to 2133mhz

I have an 850w Power supply so I don't anticipate running into any problems adding another GTX 980.

TL;DR - Will another GTX 980 added to my current setup bring me to 50-60 FPS range @ 4K in Witcher 3?
 
Solution
S
Just saw this question as i was browsing around looking for graphics tweaks to run this at 4k myself, and since I got it near-perfect on my setup, I figured I'd share. I run at Ultra preset with AA and hairworks off (hairworks didn't hit my fps much, but since I use an AMD gpu, it caused weird physics on the hair). I use a single Samsung U28D590D 4k display, flanked by two fairly generic Samsung 1080p displays. The game is in fullscreen mode, which makes switching between displays a bit more of a chore, but increases in game performance noticeably. I actually replaced and sold my EVGA GTX980 SC to put the current GPU in for the sole purpose of single card 4k gaming: an XFX R9 295X2. Now, it is FAR less efficient than the 980, or even...
Sort by date Sort by votes
T

turbopixel

Reputable
May 18, 2015
1,189
1
5,960
Witcher 3
2 * 980 sli
4k ultra: 42 fps
4k medium: 49 fps
1440p ultra: 78 fps
> http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1947-witcher-3-pc-graphics-card-fps-benchmark
From this page, Witcher 3 in 4k and ultra settings, a sli 980 is not enough to get constant or more than 60 fps. If you lower some settings, it will be playable and you will reach your required 55-60 fps (I just assume this).
Edit: If you want, try 2560x1600, which is between full hd and 4k. This way you should get your required fps at ultra settings with two 980s.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
K

knightfall3

Reputable
Apr 2, 2015
3
0
4,510


Thanks for your reply.

I do currently run it @ 2560x1600 and get great performance. I can run it at 2560x1440 in full screen, but my other 3 displays don't display (correctly) when the game is run at full screen on my 4K display. It is no inconvenience, because the borderless window provides the same performance and looks great; it isn't too small.

I read that article, and if I am not mistaken, that is before the 1.03 patch, and on stock chips and boards. I'm hoping the combo of a stable 4.6ghz OC, along with a stable and cool OC of 2 GPUs puts the FPS into the 50s post 1.03.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
K

knightfall3

Reputable
Apr 2, 2015
3
0
4,510


Thanks for your reply.

Currently, I only run 1 4K display. I have them setup in a "upside down T" shape with the 4K screen in the middle, a 1080p screen on each side and a 1080p screen above mounted on a monitor arm.

If I buy another 4K screen(s), I will stop at 3 4K displays + 1 (maybe 2) 1080p displays.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

SirDerps421

Reputable
Jun 30, 2015
1
0
4,520
Just saw this question as i was browsing around looking for graphics tweaks to run this at 4k myself, and since I got it near-perfect on my setup, I figured I'd share. I run at Ultra preset with AA and hairworks off (hairworks didn't hit my fps much, but since I use an AMD gpu, it caused weird physics on the hair). I use a single Samsung U28D590D 4k display, flanked by two fairly generic Samsung 1080p displays. The game is in fullscreen mode, which makes switching between displays a bit more of a chore, but increases in game performance noticeably. I actually replaced and sold my EVGA GTX980 SC to put the current GPU in for the sole purpose of single card 4k gaming: an XFX R9 295X2. Now, it is FAR less efficient than the 980, or even the Titan X, generating much more heat, and spiking over 600W power consumption on its own under load. That said, the price on on them has plummeted with the new GPU launches from both red and green, while it remains the only single card solution for 4k gaming (yes, I know it's cheating since it's two 290X's on a single card, but it's cheaper and uses less power than just getting the 290X's). With the settings I posted above, I average 50fps, with extremely infrequent dips to a minimum of 38, max of 60 (max refresh rate of my display). Full system specs might surprise you, as yours are actually better in everything but GPU:

AMD FX-9590 OC'd to 5.0GHz
Cooler Master Seidon 240M AIO CPU Cooler
ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z
16GB AMD Gamer Series 2133MHz DDR3
XFX R9 295X2 (no OC)
Intel 730 240GB SSD (OS and some games, including Witcher 3 installed on this)
Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM 3TB HDD
Cooler Master Silent Pro Gold 1000W PSU
Cooler Master Storm Trooper Gaming Case

Obviously, you're looking for more of a professional system that you can have some serious fun on as well, and to that end I have to warn you: 295X2's have huge, very bright red LED's on them, with no way to turn them off. There WILL be red light spilling from your case if you decide to give it a try.

If 4k is what you're after, the 295X2 is hands down the king of single card solutions for it. You can get better performance out of SLI'd 980ti's or Titan X's, but the price per card for both of those is more than a single 295.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom